SharperIron's Doctrinal Statement: Questions from Readers
The SharperIron Doctrinal Statement is available here.
Salvation and regeneration
This one came to us via the site contact form in July of 2011.
I would be interested in joining your group and adding to the discussion, however, you require that a person believe your Doctrines Statement and I have a problem with statement #8, which defines “Salvation” as being the result of the inner transformation of the man. This is not Salvation. Your statement is a fine example of the error of Roman Catholicism, which fails to understand the difference between, and relationship of, what Jesus has done FOR us and what the Holy Spirit is doing IN us. Salvation (which is the promise of the believers resurrection from the dead) is what Jesus has done FOR us, outside of us. The new-birth is what the Holy Spirit is doing INSIDE of us (it comes to every believer as a RESULT of trusting the the Gospel of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection). The new-birth is not the Gospel itself and it is not a biblical definition of Salvation.
Would I be allowed to join dispite my refusal to accept your false definition of Salvation?
Response
Thanks for reading our Doctrinal Statement.
Let me see if I can help a bit. Our doctrinal statement is actually lifted from the American Council of Christian Churches and was designed by them to accommodate a pretty broad range of groups that embrace the fundamentals of the faith. It is consciously designed to reject Roman Catholicism, along with many other errors.
That said, it’s just a doctrinal statement and these things are always imperfect.
Statement 8 reads as follows:
[We believe in…] “Salvation, the effect of regeneration by the Spirit and the Word, not by works, but by grace through faith.”
First, the words “saved” and “salvation” are used in a variety of ways in Scripture. A few examples: “Work out your own salvation” (Phil. 2:12), “salvation ready to be revealed” (1 Pet.1:5), “eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:9), “salvation belongs to our God” (Rev. 7:10). The root idea is “deliverance” or “rescue,” and it applies mainly to God’s work of rescuing believers from sin and its penalty.
Many use the term “salvation” broadly and include regeneration as part of it. Item 8 in our doctrinal statement uses the term specifically for the deliverance that comes to those who have become the sons of God (John 1:12) by believing.
The statement does not deny that resurrection is part of that salvation. Many blessings not mentioned in statement 8 are part of our salvation or inseparably linked to it, such as being glorified (Rom. 8:29-30), receiving an inheritance (1 Pet.1:4), becoming like Christ (1 John 3:2), our union with Christ (Rom. 6) and much more. So the term “salvation” properly includes God’s work both within us and outside of us.
The new birth/regeneration is not something the Spirit “is doing” in believers, but something He does immediately and fully when we believe. If any man is in Christ he is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17, emphasis added). 1 Peter 1:23 describes believers as having been born again. Similarly, 1 Peter 1:3 describes believers as “begotten again.” Ephesians 2:5 refers to believers as having been “made alive” and links this to being “saved” by grace. So “salvation” and regeneration can be spoken of as distinct but are truly inseparable.
So the statement is an accurate, though brief, summary of the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. Still, if we were going to revise it (maybe someday we will), it would probably simply say:
“Salvation, the gift of God, not by works but by grace through faith.”
So if you believe that salvation is God’s gift for all who believe and that all who believe are also regenerated, there is no reason why you could not agree with the doctrinal statement.
Total depravity
Another inquired in February of this year, also via the site contact form.
Hello Brother Aaron! Of course you don’t really know IF I am your ‘brother in the Lord’ because you do not know what I believe. Fair enough? I came across your ‘fundamental’ web site while googling for fundamental Christians.
…
I see that one of the requirements of ‘joining’ this forum is to believe that all humans are totally depraved. It’s suprises me that you would make this a ‘requirement’ for entering a forum which is suppose to be ‘open’ to discussing, debating, analyzing or simply sharing what one believes (as a Christian) is sound doctrine. Now I am quite aware that YOU…have the option of deciding ‘what can’ and ‘what cannot’ be ‘debated.’
But in my opinion, I think your ‘reasoning’ (about what can and cannot) be discussed is wrong. Aaron, there is more to God’s Truth than what just you (and I) know to be Truth. I believe you should let ‘people’ share whatever they believe. In time, IF you are continually faithful to God’s Word, you will separate the sheep from the goats. Who knows, you might even find out as I have that many who say they ‘know Jesus’ as their Savior are not really children of God to begin with. Also I absolutely believe that the Scriptures are quite clear that though all humans are sinners, NOT all humans are totally depraved. I am hoping and praying you are NOT a Calvinist. (Did you know that John Calvin absolutely believed water baptism was ‘part’ of the gospel package? He was a lot like Martin Luther in his beliefs.)
Luke 8:15 –– But the good soil represents honest, good-hearted people who hear God’s message, cling to it, and steadily produce a huge harvest.
Hope to hear from you soon…
Response
Thanks for contacting me.
What do you believe “total depravity” means? We have found that many misunderstand our position on this because they are not clear on how we’re using the term. And many mistakenly believe that the doctrine of total depravity came from Calvin.
What we mean by the term is that in Adam all sinned and consequently, all are born sinners by nature. That’s the depraved part. The “total” part is that every part of human beings’ nature is tainted by sin.
The doctrine of total depravity does not claim that every human being is as sinful as it is possible to be or that everyone is equally wicked. It does teach that apart from a gracious convicting work of the Spirit, human beings do not seek God or believe what He says.
Hope that’s helpful.
Rejoinder
Aaron,
I hope and pray you are a teachable person. If you do not believe ‘total depravity’ means total depravity you should change your wording. Aaron, you are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say you don’t believe that all humans are equally (i.e. totally) depraved, and then you say that no humans (in and of themselves) seek for God. History shows this world was (is) full of examples of unsaved religious people (totally depraved?) people who ‘sought’ the Creator God of the universe.
Unfortunately in many instances there were no true Christians (i.e. true messengers of Truth) around (in past history) to direct these people to the God of the Bible. (When the Gentile who have no (direct) Law (written Mosaic Law) do instinctively the inner hidden law of God that the Lord has put in all people these laws will be used to judge these people.) In the Bible Cornelius sought for the God of the Bible–—even though he did not know Him. (He did not get ‘saved’ until Peter came and preached the gospel to him.) John Calvin would teach that Cornelius had no choice in the matter. Calvinism teaches (falsely) that God ZAPS people (even those who were not seeking God) so that they have no choice in the matter. This is where the foolish idea of total depravity originated. In Acts chapter 17 the Apostle Paul told the unregenerated Greek philosophers that if they sought to know the God of the Bible they would find Him.
Response 2
The “total” in “total depravity” refers to all of a human being’s nature. It means there is no part of him that is not depraved. This has never meant that every person is as sinful as every other person, though it does mean we all begin at the same point. Our nature is the same but we do not all make the same choices. The result is that some become more wicked than others in their conduct.
Consequently, there is no need to change the wording in our doctrinal statement. In any case, it’s a very old term and though we could use different wording, that wouldn’t undo the history. It makes sense to me to continue to use the term as it has been used for centuries.
Your understanding of Calvin is not accurate. Neither he nor Augustine taught that people “have no choice.” Rather, he understood that a being is only able to choose what his nature permits him to choose. God cannot choose to sin. A sinner cannot choose to seek God—not because anyone is preventing him from choosing, but because he does not want to and cannot—on his own—want to.
Persons like Cornelius seek God when God draws them. Calvin et. al., have never taught that people who are being drawn do not seek God prior to believing. But in these cases, it’s a gracious drawing that moves them toward God and not their own nature.
Yes, Paul told his hearers they would find God if they sought Him. He did not say they were able in themselves to seek Him. Rather, he described what would happen if they did and urged them to do so. Preaching the gospel involves a call to all to repent and believe (seek God). God graciously produces results in hearers. When He draws them, they see the truth of the gospel message and choose to repent and believe. These ideas are far older than Calvin or even Augustine.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 2 views
[Jack Hampton] If all men are not given the ability to believe the gospel then they would have a very good “excuse” for not believing. They could say, “Since I was born in such a state whereby I have no ability to believe the gospel how can I be held guilty for not believing?”Ok, now you are just rehashing the old deflated “ought implies ability” error. As Edwards put things you are confusing moral ability with physical ability. And without that distinction you are using the (oh wait, I just happen to have Edwards’ Freedom Of The Will with me)…… I’ll just quote a little Edwards, since he covered this worn out objection so long ago. Also Luther covered this objection too, and many others, but back to Edwards.
The word “guilty” means “having incurred guilt or grave culpability, as by committing an offense or crime” (The Americal College Dictionary).
In order to be “guilty” of an offense a person must be “culpable” which is “deserving blame or censure” (American College Dictionary).
How can anyone be “guilty” or “deserve blame” for not believing the gospel if he has no ability to believe it? The fact is that no one can be found “guilty” of not believing the gospel if he does not have the ability to believe it.
If the Calvinists are right then we must believe that God condemns a man because he does not believe the gospel even though that same man is not “guilty”:
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn.3:18).
[Jonathan Edwards] It being so much insisted on by Arminian writers, that necessity is inconsistent with law or command, and particularly, that it is absurd to suppose God by his command should require that of men which they are unable to do—not allowing in this case for any difference that there is between natural and moral inability—I would therefore now particularly consider this matter.The above quote was from “The Freedom Of The Will,” by Jonathan Edwards, (Soli Deo Gloria Publications: Orlando, 1996) p. 180. As Edwards pointed out. (1) The objection misses the basic distinction between a natural impediment and a moral impediment. Certainly, his terminology can be a little confusing; however, his point is not missed. It is one thing to not be able to do a thing because of a physical inability or mental handicap; however, it is quite another to not be able to do a thing because one’s preferences are utterly averse to the command. (2) The objection misses that “The will itself, and not only those actions which are the effects of the will, is the proper object of precept or command.”(p. 180) (3) The free will scheme does not help the matter at all with its liberty of indifference or the modern libertarian freedom. Edwards continues, “So that the Arminian scheme, and not the scheme of the Calvinists, that is utterly inconsistent with moral governemnet, and with all use of laws, precepts, prohibitions, promises, or threatenings.” (p. 182) In this avenue of thought, Edwards is simply pointing out that chance and no reason are the ultimate arbiters of the other notion of the will, which is to make an act of the will an involuntary act, which of course destroys responsibility.
Again, I could quote from Andrew Fuller, and Martin Luther on the topic. That objection is old and dead, with no merit.
Furthermore, it is a philosophical imposition upon Scripture, which is based out of a libertarian like view of the will, which is utterly impossible. The objection presupposes that a libertarian view of the will is the only view of the will (begging the question), and then it applies its own notions of “freedom,” “forcing,” “culpability,” and “responsibility.” This, of course, misses the reality that there is a compatibilist notion of the will, which is a fallacy of omission or false bifurcation based upon the begging of the question of libertarian freedom. Epic fail.
In short, Jack, the problem is not with God, but it is with your false standards of culpability and guilt.
There’s too much in the preceding posts to even briefly answer right now but I do want to point out that this the following is an affirmation of Pelagianism and a denial of the site doctrinal statement:
[Jack] So to answer your question, No, I do not believe that men are born inherently hostile to God. If that was true then no one would have a revereence of God based only on the light of nature.I also want to point out that I’m not interested in pinning “Pelagian” on you, Jack, so that I can dismiss everything you’ve said (I don’t think anybody here is). Rather, I do want to identify a serious doctrinal error that Christians rejected in the 5th century because they found that it was incompatible with Scripture and sound teaching. The error happened to be championed by Mr. Pelagius. It was rejected, not by Calvinists, but by a pretty wide variety of Christian leaders led—at least through influence—by Augustine of Hippo.
(Much later, Jacobus Arminius—not a Calvinist!—embraced total depravity and rejected Pelagius.)
The doctrinal error of Pelagius, to boil it down, is that people are not sufficiently depraved to render them deeply and helplessly opposed to God. They’re essentially neutral toward God and able to choose Him without God working any changes in them first. (I’ll confess here to having some trouble distinguishing between what has come to be known as “semi-pelagianism” vs. “pelagianism.” But the gist of both is that the natural condition of fallen man is not what is described in Romans 3 and Colos.1.21, for example.)
Jack’s variation is not one I’ve seen anywhere else… probably because it lacks internal consistency. His view seems to be that:
- Men are not born in sinful rebellion against God, spiritually dead, blind to the truth
- Men (all of them, apparently) become rebellious, dead and blind when the god of this age blinds them
- Men remain able to respond in faith and “reverence” to God by looking at nature
- Men are able to respond to the gospel in every case because the Spirit always goes with the gospel, enabling hearers to respond
Where the coherence is especially lacking is between b. and c. and between c. and d. If b. is true how could c. also be true? And if c. is true, why would d. (Spirit accompanying gospel) be necessary?
In addition to lacking internal consistency, his view includes several iffy—and some false—premises (not going to list and differentiate, but has he correctly understood the fear of the Lord? Has he correctly generalized from passages about the Spirit accompanying the gospel? Is the witness of nature invalid if the hearers are unwilling to head it (is “unable” really different from “firmly unwilling” in the case of natural men?) etc.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
(He does not save all, so it must be wise and good that He doesn’t… we’ll have to wait for future clarity to fully see the wisdom and goodness in that.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jack Hampton] If all men are not given the ability to believe the gospel then they would have a very good “excuse” for not believing. They could say, “Since I was born in such a state whereby I have no ability to believe the gospel how can I be held guilty for not believing?”You seem to be asking, “How can he then find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
In any case, my view is not that He is benevolent because he saves but that He saves because He is benevolent. Maybe we are saying the same thing differently?
But I think people are on the right track if they look at His saving activity as the ultimate evidence of His benevolence.
“God so loved the world that He gave…”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I would find it very difficult to believe in the benevolence of a God who created me, condemned me through Adam’s sin, and then chose to give none a chance for salvation. Justice and benevolence are not the same thing.
Dave Barnhart
So, using benevolence as an example, it seems like he’s saying that God is benevolent simply because of who He is, not because of anything He has done. But when God demonstrates benevolence, He is not being benevolent; He is being God. Benevolent is who He is, not what He does. God could still be benevolent without ever demonstrating benevolence.
Is that what you’re trying to say, Mark?
Discussion